From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:00:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170209140042.GE12673@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1788271290.2108729.1486646650050.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Hi!
> > > There is still one unsolved problem since the TWARN messages from the
> > > tst_device.c will trigger TBROK in tst_test.c since the IPC is not
> > > initialized. I'm still unsure how to fix that, maybe we should allow to
> > > allocate non-shared structure for the results in the special case that
> > > the library code is being reused in shell helpers.
> >
> > Maybe we should just add an API to redirect tst_brk() and tst_res() so
> > that we could use library code in the various non-test utilities.
>
> Or drop that TBROK?
It's especially there for code that defines TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN but one
can argue that this is special case and if you define that macro you
should know what you are doing anyway...
But still I prefer to throw error message instead of segfaulting while
trying to deference NULL pointer.
> > Maybe
> > we could patch things up so that we could use SAFE_MACROS() in cleanup
> > as well...
>
> This should be doable with some flag we set in do_test_cleanup(), to skip
> further calls.
I'm nearly finished with RFC patch. The main problem is the
__attribute__((noreturn)) that has been added for various tst_brk*
variants. So in the end it looks like only solution is to do the
tst_brk_() redirection in the safe_macros.c, since we cannot return from
tst_brkm_() since the return address is not stored on stack because it
has noreturn attribute. And dropping the noreturn attribute from
tst_brkm_() is not an option either, since that generates a ton of
"control reaches end of non-void function" warnings.
But it's quite easy to define a macro or two that does the same
redirection as we do in tst_brkm_() so that we never reach the oldlib
code from safe_macros.c if newlib test is running.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-09 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-31 13:44 [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le Cyril Hrubis
2017-01-31 16:14 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-01 9:45 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-01 10:59 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-02 15:22 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-08 11:10 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-09 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-09 13:24 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-09 14:00 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2017-02-09 14:48 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-09 14:56 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-08-15 9:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-08-15 11:44 ` Jan Stancek
2017-08-15 12:38 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-08-15 12:48 ` Jan Stancek
2017-08-15 12:57 ` Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170209140042.GE12673@rei.lan \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox